DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 1 

XpressWest Reevaluation Summary

1.0 Introduction 

The DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC XpressWest High-Speed Train Project (Project) (formerly known as the 

DesertXpress Project) consists of the construction and operation of a fully grade-separated, dedicated, 

passenger-only high-speed rail system along an approximately 170-mile corridor connecting Apple 

Valley, California to Las Vegas, Nevada. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), its implementing regulations, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Procedures for 

Considering Impacts to the Environment (Environmental Procedures), FRA began the environmental 

review for the Project in 2006 with the publication of a Notice of Intent to initiate an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). The Project was originally evaluated in the following documents (collectively 

referenced as the DesertXpress EIS): 

• March 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and 4(f) Evaluation for the proposed 

DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train (DesertXpress DEIS) 

• April 2010 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and 4(f) Evaluation for the proposed 

DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train (DesertXpress SEIS) 

• March 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for the 

Proposed DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada

(DesertXpress FEIS) 

FRA served as the Lead Federal Agency for the environmental review of the Project. The Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), Surface Transportation Board (STB), Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), and the National Parks Service (NPS) were Cooperating Agencies. On July 8, 2011, FRA issued the

Record of Decision DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train (DesertXpress ROD) approving the Project. 

The California and Nevada Divisions of FHWA also signed a ROD for the Project on November 18, 2011. 

In January 2019, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC submitted Project modifications, including a refined 

alignment between Apple Valley and Las Vegas (with a greater proportion within the Interstate 15 [I-15] 

freeway median), modified station sites in Apple Valley1 and the Las Vegas area, and other changes to

ancillary facilities. Based on the nature of the Project modifications, FRA determined that a reevaluation 

is appropriate.

FRA’s Environmental Procedures provide: 

If major steps toward implementation of the proposed action have not occurred within 

the time frame, if any, set forth in the final EIS, or within five years from the date of 

approval of the final EIS, a written reevaluation of the adequacy, accuracy, and validity of 

the final EIS shall be prepared, and a new or supplemental EIS prepared, if necessary.

FRA documents this process in a reevaluation. A reevaluation is not a NEPA document as defined in the 

CEQ regulations and is not required to undergo public review. Reevaluations are instead used to 

document an agency’s decision whether a supplemental EIS is required.

1 Although the modified Project would relocate the Victorville Passenger Station (the modified Dale Evans Station) to within the 

Town of Apple Valley, it would serve the purpose of the original Victorville Passenger Stations considered in the DesertXpress 

EIS. 
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 2 

In February 2019, FRA initiated this Reevaluation. Based on anticipated permits and licenses needed for 

construction and operation of the Project (identified in Table 1 below), FRA invited the participation of 

the Cooperating Agencies previously involved in the NEPA process and continue to have a permit or 

authorization to participate in the reevaluation process. These agencies include: 

• FHWA – California and Nevada Divisions

• BLM – Barstow, Needles, and Las Vegas Field Offices

• STB

• US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Los Angeles District

Specific roles and responsibilities of each Federal agency, including permitting agencies, are further 

described below.

Table 1: Federal Permits or Approvals Anticipated for Action Alternatives 

Agency Permit or Approval

Federal Railroad Administration Regulations related to high-speed train operation and safety1 

Bureau of Land Management Right-of-Way (ROW)

Federal Highway Administration

• Concurrence for Highway ROW Occupancy and/or Disposal 

• Access Justification Report or Access Modification Report 

• Concurrence on Project Design Elements Related to Highway Operations 

Surface Transportation Board Authority to Construct and Operate Railroad

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Section 404 Permit (waters of the United States) 

• Section 401 Certification

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Biological Opinion 

Federal Aviation Administration 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 and Part 1572

1 FRA has no federal action related to this Project. 

2 Although not a Federal action, this regulation requires the Federal Aviation Administration to opine on the Project’s impact on the safe and 

efficient use of navigable airspace. 

FRA has held regular Cooperating Agency meetings to review the Project modifications as well as solicit 

input on the NEPA reevaluation process and any information pertinent to Cooperating Agencies’ areas 

of jurisdiction. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans), and Federal Aviation Administration have not been designated as Cooperating 

Agencies, but these agencies participate in the Cooperating Agency meetings because: 

• Project modifications place the rail alignment within the NDOT and Caltrans rights-of-way (ROW). 

• The Federal Aviation Administration must review the Project for consistency with 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 77, and because of the Project’s proximity to existing and proposed airport facilities 

in Nevada.

Concurrently with the preparation of this Reevaluation, FRA has informally consulted with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and with the 

Consulting Parties (listed in Section 3.7) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106). 
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 3 

Based on the findings of this Reevaluation, FRA determines the Project modifications would not result in 

substantial changes in the evaluation of impacts described in the DesertXpress EIS. Therefore, a 

supplemental EIS is not required for the Project modifications.

This Reevaluation summarizes (1) modifications to Project scope, design, affected environment, impacts, 

mitigation, and other applicable requirements since publication of the 2011 DesertXpress EIS and 

DesertXpress ROD, and (2) whether the environmental impacts or mitigation are different from those 

previously analyzed in the DesertXpress EIS. This document relies on the following Attachments, listed 

below and incorporated by reference:

• Attachment A: Summary of Project Modifications 

• Attachment B: Resource Impacts Analysis Report2

 

• Attachment C: Traffic and Transportation Technical Report 

o Attachment C1: Traffic and Transportation Supporting Information

• Attachment D: Cultural Resources Technical Report

• Attachment E: Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report 

• Attachment F: Air Quality Technical Report 

• Attachment G: Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

• Attachment H: Biological Resources Technical Report 

o Attachment H1: California Natural Diversity Database Sensitive Vegetation Communities List

o Attachment H2: California Natural Diversity Database Special-Status Plants List

o Attachment H3: California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plants List

o Attachment H4: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation SpecialStatus Plants List

o Attachment H5: California Natural Diversity Database Special-Status Animals List

• Attachment I: Mitigation Measure Summary

2.0 Project Modifications

Since 2011, there have been several modifications to the Project. Changes to the Project footprint and 

facilities that have occurred since the DesertXpress ROD are summarized in Attachment A, Summary of 

Project Modifications. In Attachment A, Project features are identified and summarized as “Unchanged”

(Project features unchanged from those evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS) or “Modified” (Project 

features assessed in the DesertXpress EIS but modified in terms of footprint or design). This 

Reevaluation focuses on the high-speed rail alignment, stations, and ancillary facilities listed below:

• Alignment. The alignment refers to the six-segment rail alignment between Apple Valley and Las 

Vegas. The modified rail alignment would be located primarily within the I-15 freeway median with 

portions following the east side of the I-15 freeway.

• Stations. Passenger stations include the Dale Evans Station in Apple Valley and the Warm Springs 

Station in Las Vegas. These facilities would be constructed on undeveloped land. Although stations 

were analyzed previously, the current footprints of the modified stations were not evaluated in the 

DesertXpress EIS.

2 The Resource Impacts Analysis Report addresses the following environmental topics and provides an analysis of the Project’s 

cumulative impacts: land use, community, and environmental justice; growth; farmlands and grazing lands; 

utilities/emergency services; visual resources; paleontological resources; geology and soils; hazardous materials; and energy.
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 4 

• Operations Maintenance Storage Facility (OMSF). The OMSF includes a lead track, loop tracks, 

storage tracks, and maintenance and storage buildings. The OMSF is co-located with the Dale Evans 

Station in Apple Valley. Although OMSF sites were analyzed previously, the footprint of this facility 

was not previously evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS.

• Ancillary Facilities. Ancillary facilities include temporary construction areas, negative shoulders3

, 

roadway reconstruction areas, utility corridors, electrical substations, paralleling sites, emergency 

crossovers, and a maintenance of way (MOW) facility. The Project includes footprint for ancillary 

facilities that were not previously evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS. 

3.0 Summary of Environmental Consequences

To determine whether Project modifications would result in substantial changes to the evaluation of 

environmental impacts described in the DesertXpress EIS, FRA reassessed each of the resources 

analyzed in the DesertXpress EIS based on a 15-percent design for the Project modifications. The 15-

percent design results in a conservative estimate of the modified Project footprint and, therefore, the 

analysis in this Reevaluation conservatively estimates the modified Project impacts. Key design 

refinements from the 30-percent design (including a side-running rail alignment between Apple Valley

and Barstow and revised electrical utility corridors identified through coordination with Southern 

California Edison) are evaluated in this Reevaluation to provide a comprehensive environmental 

analysis. 

FRA determined that desktop review was appropriate for the following environmental topics: land use, 

community, and environmental justice; growth; farmlands and grazing lands; utilities/emergency 

services; visual resources; paleontological resources; geology and soils; hazardous materials; energy; 

cumulative impacts for all resource topics. Changes to the affected environment for these resources 

would be unlikely to occur or were easily assessed using publicly available resources. In contrast to the 

topics discussed in technical reports, impacts of the modified Project on these topics was provided 

primarily in qualitative terms. The Resource Impacts Analysis Report (Attachment B) documents the 

evaluation of these resource areas. 

The remaining resource areas are included in individual reports (Attachment C through Attachment H) 

that contain focused, quantitative analysis. Mitigation measures were evaluated for each resource topic 

to determine if new or modified mitigation measures would be required to address the modified 

Project’s environmental impacts as discussed in Section 4.0, Changes in Mitigation Measures.

3.1 LAND USE, COMMUNITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES

The evaluation of land use, community, and environmental justice impacts to support this Reevaluation 

considered changes to the Project footprint, existing land uses, community demographics, and local land 

use designations. Consistent with the DesertXpress EIS analysis, local land use designations were 

considered even though the Project would be exempt from local land use regulations.4

 

3 Negative shoulders consist of areas where the Project would require slight widening of the I-15 freeway to accommodate an 

alignment in the I-15 freeway median. 

4 STB issued a declaratory order on June 25, 2007 regarding STB's authority under 49 U.S.C. 10901. In general, STB has exclusive 

jurisdiction over construction and operation of interstate railroads. STB’s declaratory order determined that the Project falls 

under STB’s jurisdiction because the Project alignment would connect California and Nevada. Under STB’s jurisdiction, the 

Project would be exempt from state and local land use and environmental requirements.
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 5 

Since preparation of the DesertXpress EIS, BLM adopted the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation 

Plan (DRECP) Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), which focuses on streamlining renewable energy 

development and conserving desert ecosystems within land managed by BLM across seven counties in 

southern California. To meet the DRECP goals and objectives, BLM implements Conservation and 

Management Actions (CMAs) to establish desired outcomes on land under BLM management. CMAs 

include actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health, and cover a variety of resource topics listed 

in Section 3.1.1 of Attachment B. Coordination with BLM is ongoing to determine whether the modified 

Project would traverse land under BLM management covered by the DRECP and would thus be subject 

to CMAs listed in the DRECP LUPA. An additional mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure LU-3) 

describing the additional coordination has been added to ensure adherence to CMAs in areas where the 

Project would traverse land under BLM management protected by the DRECP.

The modified alignment would reduce the Project’s land use impacts relative to the DesertXpress EIS. 

For example, the 2011 Preferred Alternative considered in the DesertXpress EIS would have traversed 

residential areas between Apple Valley and Barstow, as well as commercial areas between Barstow, 

California and Las Vegas, Nevada. However, the modified alignment is located within the I-15 freeway

ROW, which would eliminate the need to convert residential or commercial land uses to a 

transportation use, resulting in fewer land use impacts relative to the DesertXpress EIS. 

Since publication of the DesertXpress EIS, changing demographics have resulted in a greater number of 

environmental justice communities within the Project corridor. Specifically, minority populations have 

increased along the I-15 freeway corridor. The modified alignment would remain primarily within the I15 freeway ROW, avoiding division or other direct impacts to nearby communities. Furthermore, the 

DesertXpress EIS concluded that impacts to land uses, communities, and environmental justice 

communities would be minimized or avoided through mitigation measures developed in the 

DesertXpress EIS to address noise, dust, traffic, visual resources, and utilities. The type and magnitude of 

impacts resulting from the Project modifications would be comparable to those identified in the 

DesertXpress EIS. 

3.2 GROWTH

The evaluation of growth impacts to support this Reevaluation included construction-period and 

operational employment projections. The overall economic setting, population projections, and 

employment estimates for the Project vicinity have not substantially changed since the publication of 

the DesertXpress EIS. Although the modified Project would require marginally less construction activity 

than considered in the DesertXpress EIS, construction would still introduce a substantial amount of 

temporary jobs to the Project region. The modified Project would not substantially change the amount 

of permanent employment required for Project operation. Mitigation measures developed in the 

DesertXpress EIS would still apply to minimize or avoid the Project growth effects, and the type and 

magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project modifications would be comparable to those identified 

in the DesertXpress EIS. 

3.3 FARMLANDS AND GRAZING LANDS

The farmlands and grazing lands evaluation to support this Reevaluation considered newly designated 

farmlands and grazing lands not evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS, as well as new Project footprint that 

would encounter previously unevaluated farmlands or grazing lands. Review of farmlands in the 

modified Project vicinity did not reveal the presence of new designated farmland; however, grazing land 
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 6 

designations in the modified Project vicinity have changed since publication of the DesertXpress EIS. 

Since the modified Project alignment would be primarily within the I-15 freeway ROW, design 

modifications would avoid impacts on farmlands and grazing lands outside the I-15 freeway ROW 

identified by the DesertXpress EIS. Where the modified Project would place ancillary facilities (such as

electrical substations) and stations outside of I-15 freeway ROW, mitigation measures developed in the 

DesertXpress EIS would still apply to minimize impacts to farmlands and grazing lands. Therefore, 

mitigation measures developed in the DesertXpress EIS would minimize or avoid impacts to farmlands 

and grazing lands, and the type and magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project modifications 

would be comparable to those identified in the DesertXpress EIS. 

3.4 UTILITIES/EMERGENCY SERVICES

The evaluation of utilities and emergency services to support this Reevaluation considered changes to 

the Project footprint, updated ridership assumptions, and the capacity of local utility providers. 

Although the Project modifications would relocate the station sites and maintenance facility originally 

analyzed in the DesertXpress EIS, these modified facilities would remain of a similar size and scope to 

facilities considered in the DesertXpress EIS. Additionally, the modified Project would incorporate design 

guidelines provided in the 2011 DesertXpress Highway Interface Manual to allow for emergency vehicles 

to cross portions of the Project alignment located within the I-15 freeway ROW at access-controlled 

emergency crossovers. Thus, modified Project facilities would not require greater utility or emergency 

services than the facilities evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS. As the modified Project ridership would not 

increase beyond the estimates established in the DesertXpress EIS, the Project demands on utility and 

emergency services would similarly remain unchanged (refer to Section 3.14, Energy, for a focused 

discussion of energy demands). Utility providers in the Project vicinity would still maintain sufficient 

capacity to supply the modified Project. Mitigation measures developed in the DesertXpress EIS would 

minimize or avoid impacts on utility and emergency services, and the type and magnitude of impacts 

resulting from the Project modifications would be comparable to those identified in the DesertXpress 

EIS. 

3.5 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

As outlined in Attachment C, the traffic and transportation analysis to support this Reevaluation 

considered the following factors:

• Updated ridership estimates. Ridership refers to the number of passengers that would utilize the 

Project to travel between Las Vegas and Apple Valley. Ridership estimates for the modified Project 

allow for quantification of future traffic volumes created by riders accessing the station sites.

• Modified station sites. Evaluation of the modified station sites considered potential impacts to 

adjacent intersections and roadway segments that were not evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS. 

• Updated analysis years. The DesertXpress EIS evaluated traffic conditions for the Project opening 

year (2013) and a future buildout year (2030) to account for an increase in ridership over time. The 

analysis to support this Reevaluation identified a modified opening year (2023) and a modified

buildout year (2042).

Relative to the DesertXpress EIS, the Project modifications would result in similar traffic impacts. Unlike 

the previous Victorville Station sites considered in the DesertXpress EIS, the Dale Evans Station and 

OMSF site would avoid impacting nearby intersections. However, the Dale Evans Station and OMSF 

would result in a traffic increase along a segment of the I-15 freeway. The Warm Springs Station would 
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 7 

result in similar intersection impacts as originally identified for the Las Vegas Station sites at different 

intersection locations than were evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS. Mitigation measures developed in 

the DesertXpress EIS would minimize or avoid these impacts through implementation of roadway 

improvements. These mitigation measures would be revised to address the specific traffic impacts 

resulting from the modified station sites. With implementation of these revised mitigation measures, 

the type and magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project modifications would be comparable to 

those identified in the DesertXpress EIS. 

3.6 VISUAL RESOURCES

The visual resource evaluation to support this Reevaluation considered Project modifications and newly 

designated areas of visual sensitivity. Construction and operation of the modified Project would include 

fewer elevated trackway structures than previously considered, and thus would reduce the alignment 

visibility in these portions of the corridor. Additionally, the modified alignment would result in fewer 

visual impacts than those analyzed in the DesertXpress EIS because it would be constructed adjacent to 

the I-15 freeway or within the I-15 freeway median. Relocated stations and the OMSF would remain in a 

similar visual setting and of a comparable size to the stations and OMSF evaluated in the DesertXpress 

EIS. New ancillary facilities would be collocated with existing facilities of a similar nature, and previously 

evaluated ancillary facilities would not change substantially in size or location. Aesthetic treatments and 

mitigation measures developed in the DesertXpress EIS would still apply to the modified Project during 

construction and operation. Thus, the type and magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project 

modifications would be comparable to those identified in the DesertXpress EIS. 

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The evaluation of cultural resources considered archaeological resources, ethnographic resources, and 

historic built environment (architectural) resources. Concurrently with the preparation of this 

Reevaluation, FRA reinitiated consultation in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and its implementing regulations. 

For this Reevaluation, FRA made a preliminary identification of cultural resources potentially impacted 

by the modified Project based on records searches, tribal consultation, and pedestrian and 

reconnaissance field surveys. This approach is consistent with the approach FRA used to evaluate 

impacts to cultural resources in the DesertXpress EIS. The modified Project would encounter new 

archaeological resources and historic built environment resources that were not previously evaluated in 

the DesertXpress EIS. Cultural resources identified within the modified Project footprint are of a similar 

type and quality as the resources originally evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS. FRA prepared a Cultural 

Resources Technical Report (CRTR) to document this evaluation. 

During preparation of the DesertXpress EIS in 2011, FRA, the Cooperating Agencies, and the State 

Historic Preservation Offices, with input from the Project sponsor and Native American tribes, 

developed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) in compliance with Section 106 to identify the process for 

formal determination of cultural resources eligibility. For NEPA purposes, survey work was conducted to 

identify potentially affected resources, and the DesertXpress EIS included an assumption of resource

eligibility to inform the evaluation of impacts to these resources. This preliminary identification and 

evaluation of effects was conditioned on execution of a PA. The PA was executed in 2011 and 

established numerous requirements intended to ensure appropriate treatment of historic resources 

during Project construction. The PA also stipulated protocols for how and when formal eligibility 
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 8 

determinations would be made. The PA expired in 2018, as the Project did not proceed to final design 

and construction. 

In 2019, FRA reinitiated the Section 106 consultation to identify potential cultural resources associated 

with the modified Project. The Consulting Parties listed below are participating in the Section 106 

consultation. 

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

• California and Nevada State Historic Preservation Officers

• Federally recognized Native American tribes with an interest in the Project area

• Federal agencies (BLM, FRA, STB, FHWA, and USACE) 

• NDOT

• Caltrans

FRA has prepared draft technical reports for the identification and evaluation of historic archeological 

and built environment resources. The final reports will be used to document compliance with Section 

106. Based on the information in the draft technical reports, FRA has determined the Project 

modifications would not result in substantial changes in the evaluation of cultural resource impacts of 

the DesertXpress EIS. 

In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, FRA will continue to advance the Section 106 process in 

consultation with the appropriate parties. FRA intends to resolve any adverse effects to historic 

archeological and built environment resources through a Memorandum of Agreement or PA, depending 

on completion of the Section 106 process. 

3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

As discussed in Attachment E, the hydrology and water quality assessment to support this Reevaluation 

considered changes in the duration of the construction period, changes in floodplain maps in the Project 

vicinity, new Project footprint across hydrologic resources, and regulatory updates regarding the 

definition of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS). The modified Project would change the location 

of hydrological and water quality impacts. However, since the modified Project would be of the same 

general size, location, and scope as evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS, the overall magnitude of impacts 

to water quality, drainage patterns, stormwater runoff, and groundwater availability would not change 

relative to the DesertXpress EIS evaluation. 

The modified Project footprint would encounter new floodplains areas designated after the publication 

of the DesertXpress EIS. Notably, the Warm Springs Station would be located within a new 100-year 

floodplain area not evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS. Mitigation measures identified in the 

DesertXpress EIS require raising the elevation of structures within floodplains and avoiding the 

placement of construction materials within floodplains. These measures adequately reduce impacts 

associated with newly encountered floodplain areas. Other mitigation measures developed in the 

DesertXpress EIS avoid impacts on water quality, drainage patterns, flood flows, stormwater runoff and 

groundwater availability. Thus, the type and magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project 

modifications would be comparable to those identified in the DesertXpress EIS.

The final Navigable Waters Protection Rule became effective on June 22, 2020. Notably, ephemeral 

features that flow only in direct response to precipitation are no longer jurisdictional WOTUS. As 

discussed in Attachment E, by removing the jurisdictional status of ephemeral features, this regulatory 
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 9 

update eliminated the Project’s impact to WOTUS. However, the environmental analysis conducted in 

the DesertXpress EIS and this Reevaluation evaluates effects to hydrology, water quality, drainage 

patterns, and stormwater runoff to aquatic resources throughout the Project area regardless of WOTUS 

jurisdiction.

3.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

The analysis of geology and soils impacts to support this Reevaluation considered where the Project 

modifications would require new footprint and could therefore encounter previously unevaluated 

geologic and soil features. Where new geologic features or hazards, such as ground fissures, could have 

formed since the DesertXpress EIS, mitigation measures developed in the DesertXpress EIS would 

adequately address such impacts. Assessment of the modified Project footprint determined that 

previously unevaluated footprint areas overlap areas subject to the same geologic and soil hazards 

evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS. Thus, mitigation measures developed in the DesertXpress EIS would 

adequately minimize or avoid geology and soil impacts. The type and magnitude of impacts resulting 

from the Project modifications would be comparable to those identified in the DesertXpress EIS. 

3.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The paleontological resource evaluation to support this Reevaluation considered areas where the 

Project modifications overlaps geologic units that could contain paleontological resources. Assessment 

of Project modifications determined the modified Project footprint entirely overlaps geologic units 

assessed in the DesertXpress EIS. Thus, mitigation measures developed in the DesertXpress EIS would 

minimize or avoid the modified Project impacts on paleontological resources, and the type and 

magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project modifications would be comparable to those identified 

in the DesertXpress EIS. 

3.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

The hazardous materials evaluation to support this Reevaluation considered sites of environmental 

concern,5 unidentified hazardous materials, buildings constructed before 1980 that may contain leadbased paint or asbestos, and naturally occurring asbestos and erionite. As the Project modifications 

would not increase the scope or intensity of construction, the use of hazardous materials during 

construction was not considered as source of previously unevaluated impacts. 

The Project vicinity remains mainly undeveloped with the same limited areas of industrial activity that 

could result in the release or spill of hazardous materials. The modified Project may encounter 

previously unevaluated sites of environmental concern, but such sites would be unlikely to result in new 

types or higher quantities of hazardous materials than those considered in the DesertXpress EIS. As the 

Project would remain of a similar overall scope as considered in the DesertXpress EIS, the severity and 

location of impacts from unidentified hazardous materials and buildings constructed before 1980 would 

be unlikely to change. This Reevaluation also reviewed naturally occurring hazardous materials (asbestos 

and erionite) that were not considered in the DesertXpress EIS. This investigation determined that the 

presence of naturally occurring asbestos and erionite was unlikely to occur within the Project vicinity. 

Thus, mitigation measures developed in the DesertXpress EIS would minimize or avoid the modified

5 Sites of environmental concern consist of sites where spills or releases of hazardous materials have occurred.
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 10

Project hazardous material impacts, and the type and magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project 

modifications would be comparable to those identified in the DesertXpress EIS. 

3.12 AIR QUALITY AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

As outlined in Attachment F, the air quality and global climate change technical analysis to support this 

Reevaluation evaluated emissions generated during construction and operation of the modified Project. 

Relative to the DesertXpress EIS analysis, the modified Project would require less construction activity

because the overall Project footprint would be smaller. The modified Project would also require fewer 

miles of elevated track (viaduct) and would eliminate tunneling, which would reduce the intensity of 

construction activities from that assumed in the DesertXpress EIS. As a result, air quality and global 

climate change impacts during construction would be reduced relative to the effects identified in the 

DesertXpress EIS. 

The operational air quality and global climate change analysis considered the following factors:

• Emissions resulting from electricity demand to power trains. An analysis of energy needs under the 

Project modified operating plan determined that less electricity would be required to power the 

trains when compared to the DesertXpress EIS analysis. This reduction would reduce offsite

emissions from power plants generating electricity used by the Project. 

• Mode-shift from passenger vehicles. The DesertXpress EIS originally concluded that the Project 

would reduce automobile trips between Apple Valley and Las Vegas by providing a less emissionintensive travel alternative. Because the modified Project would still provide an alternative mode of 

non-automobile travel along the I-15 freeway corridor, it would reduce vehicle miles traveled along 

this corridor and associated automobile emissions. 

• Localized toxic air contaminant emissions. The Project modifications do not include new sources of

toxic air contaminant emissions. 

• Carbon monoxide hotspots. Carbon monoxide concentrations under the Project modifications 

would not exceed carbon monoxide concentrations quantified and disclosed in the DesertXpress EIS; 

thus, the modified Project would not result in new carbon monoxide hotspots. 

Given the above, the modified Project would generate fewer criteria pollutants and GHGs during 

construction and operation relative to the DesertXpress EIS. Therefore, the type and magnitude of 

impacts resulting from the Project modifications would be comparable to those identified in the 

DesertXpress EIS. The DesertXpress EIS concluded that the Project would not exceed de minimis

thresholds and therefore a general conformity determination would not be required. As the air quality 

analysis (Attachment F) indicates the Project modifications would reduce the Project emissions in 

comparison to the DesertXpress EIS, the Project modifications would still not exceed the de minimis

threshold. 

3.13 NOISE AND VIBRATION

As outlined in Attachment G, the noise and vibration analysis evaluated construction and operation of 

the modified Project. New noise impact locations were identified due to the following factors: 

• Changes in affected environment. Decreases in highway traffic noise levels relative to the 

DesertXpress EIS analysis would increase the relative magnitude of operational noise in the 

communities of Barstow, Yermo, and Las Vegas.
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 11

• Modified Project footprint. Changes in the Project footprint would result in additional noise impact

locations where the alignment would be located closer to existing residences, primarily along the

east side of the I-15 freeway in Las Vegas. 

• Modified operating plan. The Project’s updated operating plan proposes larger trainsets with more 

frequent headways, which would potentially increase operational noise.

The DesertXpress EIS included mitigation measures to reduce operational noise impacts generated by 

passing trains – primarily the installation of noise barriers to shield noise-sensitive land uses such as 

residential areas. The noise analysis (Attachment G) identified revised noise barrier locations to mitigate 

and reduce noise from train operation. Therefore, the type and magnitude of impacts resulting from the 

Project modifications would be comparable to those identified in the DesertXpress EIS.

3.14 ENERGY

The energy analysis to support this Reevaluation considered electricity and energy consumed during 

construction and operation of the modified Project. The reduced Project footprint and shortened 

construction period indicates that the modified Project would likely require less energy during 

construction relative to the DesertXpress EIS. During operation, changes to the Project modified

operation plan would not result in substantial changes to the modified Project peak-period or overall 

energy demand. Finally, the modified Project would continue to reduce vehicle miles traveled and 

associated energy consumption along the I-15 freeway corridor due to the transportation mode shift 

from automobiles to the Project. Thus, the type and magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project 

modifications would be comparable to those identified in the DesertXpress EIS. 

3.15 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

As described in Attachment H, the biological analysis to support this Reevaluation is informed by ongoing coordination with the USFWS. Concurrently with the preparation of this Reevaluation, FRA 

submitted a letter to the USFWS on July 20, 2020 seeking concurrence that the Project modifications do 

not require reinitiation of formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As 

described in the letter, FRA determined this approach was appropriate because impacts on species 

listed as threatened or endangered and critical habitat have been substantially reduced, and no new 

impacts would occur as a result of the Project modifications that were not previously addressed in the 

Biological Opinion issued for the Project on April 26, 2011. FRA will continue to coordinate with USFWS, 

as appropriate. 

In addition to the Section 7 consultation process, the biological analysis to support this Reevaluation

considered the following factors:

• Changes in affected environment. Reassessment of the modified Project with a focus on new areas 

of footprint to determine if new/different biological resources are present from those originally 

evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS.

• Regulatory updates. Regulatory updates that have occurred since publication of the DesertXpress 

EIS may have changed the assignment, designation, and protection status of biological resources 

within the Project footprint and vicinity. 

• Modified Project footprint. Biological resource impacts that may occur in the new Project footprint.

Field surveys conducted within the modified Project footprint established that the biological 

environment has not changed substantially since the publication of the DesertXpress EIS. The modified 
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 12

Project would generally reduce impacts to biological resources relative to the DesertXpress EIS. The 

placement of the entirety of the rail alignment and a greater portion of ancillary facilities within the I-15 

freeway ROW would reduce biological resource impacts compared to the DesertXpress EIS. Mitigation 

measures developed in the DesertXpress EIS and modified Biological Opinion would still apply and would 

minimize or avoid impacts to biological resources. 

In 2016, BLM designated new management regions (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern [ACEC]), 

which overlap the modified Project footprint. Each ACEC has a ‘disturbance cap’ establishing the 

maximum allowable acreage of permanent infrastructure or disturbance within the ACEC. The modified 

Project’s impacts to ACECs were determined by quantifying the total permanent Project footprint within 

each ACEC on land under BLM management outside of the I-15 freeway ROW. 

3.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The evaluation of cumulative impacts for this Reevaluation considered impacts from the Project

modifications in combination with current, planned, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Project 

vicinity. Overall, the modified Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts would be unchanged or 

reduced because of the modified Project’s reduced footprint and location within the I-15 freeway ROW. 

Review of present and reasonably foreseeable projects within the Project vicinity did not identify new

information that would substantially affect the cumulative impacts conclusions or assessment 

conducted in the DesertXpress EIS. Furthermore, the mitigation measures developed in the 

DesertXpress EIS to reduce Project impacts would still apply to the modified Project to reduce 

contributions to cumulative effects. Thus, the type and magnitude of impacts resulting from the Project 

modifications would be comparable to those identified in the DesertXpress EIS. 

4.0 Changes in Mitigation Measures

This Reevaluation updated and modified mitigation measures (Attachment I) developed in the 

DesertXpress EIS to address changes in the affected environment and Project modifications since 

publication of the DesertXpress EIS. 

This Reevaluation resulted in minor revisions to several mitigation measures to apply to modified 

Project features. For instance, Mitigation Measure HYD-8: Minimize Impact of OMSF2 on Water 

Resources, has been revised to apply to the Dale Evans Station and OMSF site since the OMSF2 is no 

longer under consideration. Some mitigation measures were removed entirely in cases where the 

modified Project would completely avoid impacts addressed by such measures. For example, Mitigation 

Measure GEO-11: Tunneling has been removed because the modified Project no longer includes tunnels. 

Mitigation measures pertaining to the following resource topics required greater revision than 

mitigation measures addressing other topics:

• Land Use, Community, and Environmental Justice. Mitigation Measure LU-3 was added to ensure 

adherence to CMAs in areas where the Project would traverse land managed by BLM protected by 

the DRECP.

• Traffic and Transportation. Mitigation measures pertaining to traffic were revised to address the 

traffic impacts at the modified station sites. 

• Noise and Vibration. Mitigation measures pertaining to noise were revised to address noise impacts 

at new noise sensitive areas.
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 13

• Biological Resources. Relocation of the alignment within the I-15 freeway ROW would avoid some

biological resources impacts, thus eliminating the need for several mitigation measures identified in 

the DesertXpress EIS.6

 

Mitigation measures developed in the DesertXpress EIS, with the revisions described above and 

provided in Attachment I, would avoid or minimize the modified Project impacts. Consistent with the 

DesertXpress EIS, implementation of certain mitigation measures could require the acquisition or 

easements beyond the public ROW, which could be subject to additional environmental analysis.

6 Mitigation measures provided in the Biological Opinion for the Project will be revised through the Section 7 consultation with 

the USFWS, as discussed in Section 3.15.
DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC/XPRESSWEST HIGH-SPEED TRAIN FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SEPTEMBER 2020 PAGE 14

This page intentionally left blank